Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3000 (MAD)

Perumal Chettiar v. Govindammal Sriramulu (died)

2012-07-13

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard all the Advocates concerned in these revisions. 2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus: (i) I.A.No.1988 of 2008 was filed by one Govindammal under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the following reliefs: "- To amend the final decree petition and the affidavit as mentioned below: 1. In Para II, after the name and address of No.4 the following has to be added. 5. Navaneethammal, w/o.Sriramulu, residing at Kunniyur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk. 6. Madavan S/o. Sriramulu residing at 136/194, Kesavalu Nagar, Kallakurichi. 7. Kalavathi, w/o. Ramanarayanan, residing at 34B Perumal Kovil Street, Kallakurichi. 8. Sridhar, S/o.Sriramulu residing at Kunniyur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk. 9. Ravichandran, S/o. Sriramulu, residing at Perumal Kovil street, Kallakurichi. 10. Pushpalatha W/o.Vivekanandhan, employed at Primary Society at Anthiyur village, Kallakurichi Taluk. 11. Santhi, w/o. Jayaraman, residing at 15, 2nd Main, Muniswappa Road, Subbanapalaya, PNS Lay Out, Bangalore-84, Karnataka State. 12. Geethalakshmi, w/o.Ganesan, residing at Sithiraipattu Village, Kallakurichi Taluk. 2.) After the end of para III, the following paragraph has to be added. IV. Description of properties: B. Schedule. ....................... Details of the amendment in the affidavit After para 1 of the affidavit to include another paragraph as detailed below. 1A] since the first petitioner died recently, the legal heir petition filed for the said deceased Sriramulu was filed and allowed on 1.4.2008. As per the legal heir petition the legal heirs of the deceased Sriramulu have been added as respondents No.5 to 12." (extracted as such) (ii) Counter was filed by the respondents. (iii) After hearing both sides, the said application was allowed. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the following three civil revision petitions have been filed by the following three persons: Perumal Chettiar - CRP NPD No.129/2010 S. Ravichandran - CRP NPD No.869/2010 A. K. T. Govindammal - CRP NPD No.2961/2010 challenging one and the same order. 4. (iii) After hearing both sides, the said application was allowed. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the following three civil revision petitions have been filed by the following three persons: Perumal Chettiar - CRP NPD No.129/2010 S. Ravichandran - CRP NPD No.869/2010 A. K. T. Govindammal - CRP NPD No.2961/2010 challenging one and the same order. 4. The learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners in unison would try to impugn and challenge the order dated 16.04.2009 passed in I.A.No.1998 of 2008 in O.S.No.409 of 1981 on the ground that in an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, instead of seeking amendment to the final decree petition by way of getting incorporated the names of the legal heirs of the deceased R1, the petitioner therein did also choose to get incorporated a separate schedule, viz., B Schedule of property and consequently, two prayers were made in one and the same application, which was not tenable. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that based on the affidavit filed along with the Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the order was passed, warranting no interference in these revisions. 6. The points for consideration is as to whether the lower court was justified in allowing the application filed in I.A.No.1998 of 2008 without insisting for a separate application to be filed for getting incorporated the 'B' schedule property in the application for final decree? 7. Trite the proposition of law is that in an interlocutory application, there should be only one prayer. The indubitable and unarguable point is that the Hon'ble Apex Court allotted share in favour of the plaintiff-Govindammal in the "B" Schedule property also. However in the earlier final decree application filed, anterior to the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment, the plaintiff was not allotted any share in the "B" schedule property. However, in view of the saaid Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment, the petitioner therein became entitled to a share in "B" schedule also, which necessitated the petitioner to incorporate the "B" schedule of property in the schedule of property appended to the interlocutory application for final decree and along with that she also wanted the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent's names to be incorporated. 8. If the matter has to be viewed strictly, two separate applications ought to have been filed. 8. If the matter has to be viewed strictly, two separate applications ought to have been filed. But in view of the categorical finding of the lower court Judge that there was no controversy over the adding of the B schedule of the property in the schedule of property to the I.A for final decree, there is no necessity for such hyper technical view. Therefore, no interference with such order is warranted in these revisions. If at all there is any genuine grievance over such amendments, certainly, this court can interfere with the same in these revisions, but there is none. Technicalities are hand maids of justices and because of bare non-adherence to the punctilious of court procedures, I do not want to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the court below. 9. Accordingly, all these three revisions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.